Considering that my entire life has crumbled before my eyes recently, criticism from someone who refers to himself as "Spit" and who's entire repertoire of posts on this forum makes Wayne and Garth look like geniuses I find this inconsequential.

You know, the larger issue here is how we as a society perceive race, gender, age and class.

I think everyone here would agree that if I, as a middle aged white woman, wore a hoodie in the rain, and walked in a random sort of way through a middle class neighborhood, no one would assume that I was a potential burglar. And if, on that rainy night, a man followed me through that neighborhood, first in his car, and then on foot, and I subsequently lurched out and struck him, a struggle ensued, I banged his head on the sidewalk, and he then shot me to death, the police would view the situation differently. When the police arrived on the scene, they would probably not be as ready to accept the explanation that I was a potential burglar, or that I posed a threat to the community, or that I had provoked the attack, or that the man who shot me had acted in self defense. And a jury would view the situation differently.

Is there anyone who disagrees with the fact that this situation would be viewed differently?

When you swap out the race and gender and age, the scenario doesn’t make sense.

We as a society have agreed that it is ok to assume that young black men are criminals, and to treat them as such until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are not. Here in NYC, where young black men represent a significant percentage of the population, young men of color are disproportionately targeted for random and degrading police stop and search procedures. Taxis don’t stop for black men. It is almost a joke. And when black men and white men are convicted of identical crimes, the black man is statistically more likely to receive a harsher sentence. When young black men die violent deaths, we, as a society, assume that they are at least partially to blame.

Is this ok?

I’ve posted this video before, but I’m going to share it again. NYC City Council Member, Jumaane Williams, and Kristen Foy, aid to the NYC Public Advocate, were en route to a VIP luncheon associated with the West Indian Day Parade in Brooklyn. The street that they are on was blocked off, IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE PASSAGE OF VIP’s to the event. Councilmember Williams, who is quite young to be an elected official, showed the police his credentials, and the police refused to look at them, insisting that he could not pass. The councilmember was on the phone with the NYC Police Commissioner at the time of his arrest. He was arrested for refusing to leave the street that was blocked off specifically to facilitate the passage of VIP’s like him to this event. His associate, Kristen Foy, is the man in the turquoise shirt, was also attending the event as a representative of the Public Advocate. In this footage, you see the police pushing him back, pushing him back. In this footage, he looks angry. Justifiably angry. The police are seen pushing him, and then ultimately tackling him, and knocking him face first into the ground, and then dragging him off in handcuffs.

Young black men are searched and tackled and handcuffed and shot every day. And mostly, we kind of assume that they are at least partially responsible for their plight.

Black men look suspicious. They look suspicious if they walk too quickly. They look suspicious if they walk too slowly. They look suspicious if they don’t make eye contact. They look confrontational if they look us directly in the eye. They look suspicious if they reach into their pockets. They look suspicious if they are in middle class neighborhoods. They look suspicious if they are standing on the corner of low income neighborhoods. They look suspicious if they are carrying a bag. They look suspicious if they are driving a nice car. They look suspicious if they cut through an alley. They look suspicious if they try to pass through a VIP area. Even if they have the credentials to be there. They look suspicious if they try to hail a cab. They look suspicious in elevators. They look suspicious in stores. And everyone knows they look suspicious on dark streets. They look suspicious in groups of other black men. And they look suspicious alone.

We all know that this is true. It is so deeply engrained in our psyches, that we don’t even really question it too much. And when a black kid is shot because he looked suspicious, well, this kid should have known that he looked suspicious. He should have been focusing on the fear of the man who was following him, rather than on his own fear of being followed by a stranger. He should have known that the guy following him was a good guy, who had justifiably mistaken him for a bad guy. He should have forgotten about the things he was probably taught by his parents and his teachers a decade earlier, when he was in first grade, about stranger danger.

My first grader learned about stranger danger in school. She thinks that there are bad guys who might try and “steal” her, and then come to our house and take Pinkie, her favorite stuffed animal. She sometimes cries about it at night. A decade from now, she will have different images in her mind of what a stranger might do to her. Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon had images in his mind of what this stranger might do to him.

You see, Trayvon’s problem is that he didn’t adequately embrace the fact that he just looked suspicious. He thought that the other guy looked suspicious. And that is a privilege that Trayvon just wasn’t entitled to.

I have looked at young black men with suspicion on various occasions--it is hard not too. I have also looked at white men with suspicion, sometimes justifiably.And I have been looked at with suspicion, mainly when I was a lot younger. I have been followed by security in stores, etc. I had to deal with the idea that I was a threat somehow, that I did not have the right to be where I was.

I was raised to understand that I would spend a lot of mental energy dealing with what white people thought of me, and trying to combat misperceptions. I, like most black people, had to learn to see myself through the eyes of white people, as well as developing my own identity.

It is so true that black people, esp. men, are not supposed to have the luxury of being afraid--we are supposed to be feared, esp. by white people. We are supposed to reassure them that we are not bad. All the time. It is hard to imagine the amount of mental energy a black man, especially a young one, has to expend on this. It's a wonder more don't lose their minds.

I actually make a specific effort not to 'notice' black people in that way. And with good reason - I was looked at as being suspicious, strange, and even a little scary when I was growing up. I had to wear thick glasses, so I got harassed by a lot of other children, and I responded angrily, even violently. I got in a lot of fights where I was the one to blame for attacking even though I'd been provoked by their behavior towards me. So I can understand how it feels to be treated that way a lot better than the average white person. Perhaps not as well as if I'd been born with dark-colored skin, but well enough that I can at least sympathize with it.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I think everyone here would agree that if I, as a middle aged white woman, wore a hoodie in the rain, and walked in a random sort of way through a middle class neighborhood, no one would assume that I was a potential burglar.

Not everyone would agree. If I were driving into my neighborhood, and saw you walking down the street toward my house, in the rain wearing a hoodie, I would view you with suspicion. If I thought you were suspicious enough to warrant me calling the police, I most likely would try to keep you in sight until they arrived. If I had the need to continue to track you, and you were walking into yards like you didn't want me to follow you, I would most likely have armed myself, if possible.

If you approached me, I would ask you if you were lost or needed help finding someone or a house. You would respond by saying you were staying at such and such an address, and you were headed there now. If you were unsure how to get there, I might offer you a lift.

If you had an attitude and gave me some lip, I would keep my distance and wait for the police to arrive. I would still do my best to keep you in my sight.

I would do all this because I live within a neighborhood of neighbors. I would do this to potentially protect my neighbors from harm.

If I thought you were suspicious enough to warrant me calling the police, I most likely would try to keep you in sight until they arrived. If I had the need to continue to track you, and you were walking into yards like you didn't want me to follow you, I would most likely have armed myself, if possible.

What would a middle aged lady walking alone in the rain do that would be "suspicious enough" to warrant calling the police? Especially in a fairly densely populated community. What would I need to be doing in order to make you feel that you had to arm yourself and follow me?

Here's where perceptions are important. At what point should a person being followed by a stranger decide that self-defense is necessary? I can't imagine following or bothering a person who is doing nothing illegal. Even if it looks "suspicious", 99% of the time it is an innocent person doing something perfectly understandable when explained.

Suppose I am out on a walk late one evening and see a young teen male, black and in a hoodie, who I don't recognize, trying to climb over a fence into a neighbor's yard. Should I assume that he is a burglar or a rapist? Should I investigate this myself, and possibly engage the person?

Of course not. If I take any action, it should be to call the neighbors, or the police. It is far more likely that it is a visiting nephew who snuck out after everyone was in bed to visit a cute neighbor girl. Or he is a mentally handicapped guy who has forgotten his keys. My brother fits that last category and, when he was younger, he got hassled a lot for "suspicious behavior" in public. Being followed or questioned invariably made him act even more "suspicious". I can easily imagine him freaking out and swinging at someone he thought was going to hurt him. And he could have ended up like Trayvon.[1]

If I yelled at the guy and he began to run away, is he now behaving suspiciously enough to arm myself and follow him? Why should he assume that I am not dangerous to him--I'm chasing him and he was not doing anything wrong. If he turns and attacks me, should I shoot him? Has he now become the criminal I thought he was? Or is he still just a stupid kid who is afraid of getting in trouble with his aunt for breaking curfew, or being yelled at by his mom (again) for losing his keys?

One of the major problems with perception is that we learn about the world through the media instead of from reality. News shows feature detailed reports and images of sensational violence, while downplaying the much more widespread white collar crimes that injure far more people, but are hard to report on and boring to look at.

Several studies show that people who watch a lot of tv cop dramas and local news programs have highly exaggerated estimates of how much violent crime actually occurs. Posturing, cursing rappers and videos that feature guns and violence certainly don't help. I have seen far too many young baby-faced wannabes holding their crotches and mouthing lyrics so violent and/or obscene that my already nappy hair wants to curl.[2]

Add real guns to the already high tension mix, and people start to assume that "looks like a thug" equals suspicious equals criminal equals violence equals danger. Those people who look like this and act like that are out to do you harm. If the suspicious person reacts in some unexpected or unpleasant way, assume the worst--they are going to hurt or kill you--and shoot them first. You don't even need to wait to get a good look at them.That accounts for the "gun fail" accidental shootings of friends and family members who came home after dark or unexpectedly.

Can anyone explain the crotch grabbing to me? I know, I am old school. Back in the day, some Donna Summer, Rod Stewart and Marvin Gaye songs were considered to risqué to play on the radio, just because they hinted at sex.

This all reminds me of this southern governor (I forget which state) who was told, with evidence, that a black man wasn't guilty of the crime he was accused of, and the governor replied, "Well, he's guilty of something." -- oh by the by: the guy was on death row. Guess what happened?

If I thought you were suspicious enough to warrant me calling the police, I most likely would try to keep you in sight until they arrived. If I had the need to continue to track you, and you were walking into yards like you didn't want me to follow you, I would most likely have armed myself, if possible.

What would a middle aged lady walking alone in the rain do that would be "suspicious enough" to warrant calling the police? Especially in a fairly densely populated community. What would I need to be doing in order to make you feel that you had to arm yourself and follow me?

I can concede that in such a scenario one may call the police on the woman in question. BUT, the call would be quite different than it would likely be if the middle aged woman were a young man, especially a young man of color. The call to the police about the lady would likely be one that said she looks like she's on drugs and NEEDS HELP as opposed to a call that paints her as a potential threat to the neighborhood. Our perceptions as well as other factors make it more likely to feel threatened by the young male and to feel pity for the older female.

Being that GZ was supposedly running an errand for his wife when everything transpired, I am left wondering why it is that he would have been strapped. Did he make it his practice to always be packing or something?

Being that GZ was supposedly running an errand for his wife when everything transpired, I am left wondering why it is that he would have been strapped. Did he make it his practice to always be packing or something?

Only GZ would be able to tell you that. People who carry generally have different reasons for carrying and different times and circumstances under which they will carry. Most people don't carry all the time, but some do.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Table 14. Number of inmates in State prisons and local jails per 100,000 residents, by gender, race, and Hispanic origin, June 30, 2005

Number of inmates per 100,000 residents Region and jurisdiction Male.......Female...White....Black....Hispanic ...Male/Fem......Bl:Wh .........All States ..........1,249........121.......412.....2289.......742.........10.3:1.......5.6:1

We know that a first crime is likely to be committed between ~14 and 25 years. Once you are over that age and have not committed a crime, then the chances are that you will remain basically law-abiding.

A young black male is at least 50 times more likely to be committing a crime than a middle-aged white woman.

This is not a perception: it is reality.

The question is, “Do you want to tackle crime by stopping and searching the most likely suspects?” or “Do you want to put an end to the statistical anomalies?”

But you would not ask either question because you can recognise a false dichotomy when you see one. You do both.

Of course you can say that Imprisonment is the result of crime and Crime is caused by poverty, and Poverty is cause by low education and Low education is caused by low expectations andLow expectations are caused by low opportunity and Low opportunity to make it in the honest world leads to crime andCrime leads to imprisonment and each generation passes down its memes.

And you can recall that in the days of slavery in the US, large numbers of slaves sat in proximity to small numbers of whites and The whites treated them strictly to repress any ideas of freedom or rebellion andFreedom and rebellion would have led to the loss of wealth for the whites andThe whites could pass laws but the blacks could not and The law protects wealth andThe cause of the slaves’ dissatisfaction was the inequality of wealth and opportunity and The fear of the whites was the inequality of wealth and opportunity and The blacks were resentful and the whites sensed this and became afraid and distrusted the blacks.This mentality has permeated black and white US society: Whites do not trust blacks and blacks want what the whites have and each generation passes down its memes.

Let us not forget that not all the slaves were black, the descendants of the white slaves have thrown their lot in with the other whites and see blacks as competition for scare resources.

The system needs sorting out.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Table 14. Number of inmates in State prisons and local jails per 100,000 residents, by gender, race, and Hispanic origin, June 30, 2005

Number of inmates per 100,000 residents Region and jurisdiction Male.......Female...White....Black....Hispanic ...Male/Fem......Bl:Wh .........All States ..........1,249........121.......412.....2289.......742.........10.3:1.......5.6:1

We know that a first crime is likely to be committed between ~14 and 25 years. Once you are over that age and have not committed a crime, then the chances are that you will remain basically law-abiding.

A young black male is at least 50 times more likely to be committing a crime than a middle-aged white woman.

This is not a perception: it is reality.

The question is, “Do you want to tackle crime by stopping and searching the most likely suspects?” or “Do you want to put an end to the statistical anomalies?”

But you would not ask either question because you can recognise a false dichotomy when you see one. You do both.

Of course you can say that Imprisonment is the result of crime and Crime is caused by poverty, and Poverty is cause by low education and Low education is caused by low expectations andLow expectations are caused by low opportunity and Low opportunity to make it in the honest world leads to crime andCrime leads to imprisonment and each generation passes down its memes.

And you can recall that in the days of slavery in the US, large numbers of slaves sat in proximity to small numbers of whites and The whites treated them strictly to repress any ideas of freedom or rebellion andFreedom and rebellion would have led to the loss of wealth for the whites andThe whites could pass laws but the blacks could not and The law protects wealth andThe cause of the slaves’ dissatisfaction was the inequality of wealth and opportunity and The fear of the whites was the inequality of wealth and opportunity and The blacks were resentful and the whites sensed this and became afraid and distrusted the blacks.This mentality has permeated black and white US society: Whites do not trust blacks and blacks want what the whites have and each generation passes down its memes.

Let us not forget that not all the slaves were black, the descendants of the white slaves have thrown their lot in with the other whites and see blacks as competition for scare resources.

The system needs sorting out.

Just stop.

Is that evidence of a broken legal system or is that reality?Why are there studies that show drug use is more or less equal between black and white, but drug arrests far more frequent if youre black? And that chart you posted has nothing to do with the case at hand, nor does it make it acceptable to stalk and shoot a kid. Youre doing exactly what I said, trying to defend a murder and its unbecoming of you.

Statistics can be misleading. What exactly are you trying to show, Graybeard? That it is okay to detain black people who are not breaking any laws, just because? We would probably catch more criminals doing periodic random searches of everyone in the country. Guess how likely that is--middle class white people would never stand for being put through the sh!t that young black guys are supposed to accept as normal.

Imprisonment results from being arrested, charged, and convicted of a crime. Not everyone who commits a crime ends up arrested, let alone charged, or convicted. For many crimes, esp. non-violent offenses, the perp is never apprehended. And even when caught, what happens next is largely a function of the resources the perp can bring to bear.

Jails are full of people who probably are guilty of the crime they were charged with, and who could not make bail or afford a decent attorney.Middle class and upper middle class people almost never end up in jail. Not because they never break the law-- they use drugs as much as if not more than poor people,[1] pass bad checks, shoplift, and even do violence. They drive drunk or high. (cough Lohan cough.)

But they do it all behind closed doors, rather than out in the park or in a vacant lot. Police don't patrol wealthy areas to stop and search the residents. I have a friend who lives in a gated community where you have to show ID to even get past the gate. Think the police are going in there to search the teens? Who knows how the crime stats would look if they did?

And even when wealthier folks do get caught, they can get good representation so they never have to see the inside of a jail cell. They don't get beaten up or shot, either. Wealthy teens in trouble get sent to rehab or counseling, which is what should happen to most anyone doing non-violent crimes.

Once someone gets a prison record in the US, they can basically say goodbye to their future--no welfare, no food stamps, no college education, no decent job, not even the military. What is left but living off your family and/or going back to crime? And who thinks about that at 18, 19 or 20?

One study I saw (wish I could remember where) showed that white middle class teens were far more likely to use drugs and drink underage than black low-income teens, because they had less supervision and more money...

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

I have looked at young black men with suspicion on various occasions--it is hard not too. I have also looked at white men with suspicion, sometimes justifiably.And I have been looked at with suspicion, mainly when I was a lot younger. I have been followed by security in stores, etc. I had to deal with the idea that I was a threat somehow, that I did not have the right to be where I was.

I was raised to understand that I would spend a lot of mental energy dealing with what white people thought of me, and trying to combat misperceptions. I, like most black people, had to learn to see myself through the eyes of white people, as well as developing my own identity.

It is so true that black people, esp. men, are not supposed to have the luxury of being afraid--we are supposed to be feared, esp. by white people. We are supposed to reassure them that we are not bad. All the time. It is hard to imagine the amount of mental energy a black man, especially a young one, has to expend on this. It's a wonder more don't lose their minds.

I agree very much. Of course, i don't try to look at people with suspicion because i have no reason to. But yeah i do feel that this world is packed with paranoid suspicions of other people. The thing i'm suspicious about are boys with their pants below their butt. I do feel that i get some people looking at me suspiciously. I don't know why. I'm just a white deaf 31 year old guy just minding his own business. I remember back in Arizona (I'm no longer living there thankfully) i was walking on home and there's this woman ahead of me. she stops when i was just about to pass her, she went, "WHAT?" at me. i said, "nothing." So when i was at the crosswalk, i went ahead and crossed again to the other side and saw her still standing at the crosswalk.

Logged

Me:What are you looking at Eminem?Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

What would a middle aged lady walking alone in the rain do that would be "suspicious enough" to warrant calling the police? Especially in a fairly densely populated community. What would I need to be doing in order to make you feel that you had to arm yourself and follow me?

I don't live in a densely populated community. My house is in a development, near the end of a cul-de-sac.

I have taken a long time to answer because I'm having trouble defining what might make me "suspicious enough" to warrant a call to police. Maybe it's like pornography - I'll know it when I see it!

If I were that suspicious, I would probably try to keep you in sight until police arrived, so they could locate you and help you find your way home. It would be a rare circumstance where I would feel threatened enough to go home, arm myself, and go back into the streets to keep an eye on you. I have a concealed carry permit, but the chances I would have had a weapon on me are almost nil.

Maybe I missed something in the trial testimony, but GZ seemed to be trailing TM to keep him in sight. I never heard that GZ confronted TM. GZ said TM doubled back and confronted him. If TM would have gone to the house upon first losing GZ, he could have told his dad about the crazy ass cracker following him, and then the police could have questioned GZ.

Maybe I missed something in the trial testimony, but GZ seemed to be trailing TM to keep him in sight. I never heard that GZ confronted TM. GZ said TM doubled back and confronted him. If TM would have gone to the house upon first losing GZ, he could have told his dad about the crazy ass cracker following him, and then the police could have questioned GZ.

Trailing someone - even if it's just to keep them in sight - is itself an escalation. I mean, think about it. Zimmerman was apparently trying to keep Martin in sight. Do you really think that being watched like that did not affect Martin's perception of the situation? That it didn't make him feel threatened at all? Especially when he ran off and Zimmerman got out of his car to follow? I'm not saying that it justified him in going back after Zimmerman, but it assuredly made the situation worse than it needed to be.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Honestly, now that I think about it, Trayvon might have been acting perfectly rationally, from the perspective of a teenager with younger kids and family at home. I think that if he saw that someone was following him, after dark, and got out of their car, and was also intermittently talking on the phone, presumably about him, he would be panicked beyond belief. Does the guy have a friend in another car somewhere? What the hell is going on? Nothing good, that was for sure. If I was a teen, I know I would be thinking that rape, kidnapping or who knows what was in store for me.

And, as a parent, I am not sure that I would head straight home either, as I would not want the person to know where I lived and possibly go after my daughter, too! In my panicked state, I might even confront the person myself. I hope I wouldn't, but I might think I was protecting my family at that point. Trayvon might have thought that if he went home, the person--maybe a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer-- would know where he lived, and might go after the other kids.

Teens don't generally think they are going to die-- they think they are invincible. They also often fantasize about being heroes and saving their friends and families from danger.[1] As has been said, we don't really know what was in Trayvon's mind. And, despite the trial, we may never really know what went on between the two that night. I just wish there had not been a gun involved.

Again, lets not turn this around on the kid. He did not stalk Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the one acting invincible by stalking the kid... with a loaded pistol. His actions are the ones to be described as playing too many video games. Lets stop vilifying the kid, no? He's not the murderer, he was the one going home who was murdered.

It isn't even so much that teenagers think they're invincible, it's that the part of their brain that assesses risk isn't fully developed. Frankly, it doesn't finish developing till the mid-twenties or later. I'm in my mid-thirties, and I still occasionally misjudge risks.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

It isn't even so much that teenagers think they're invincible, it's that the part of their brain that assesses risk isn't fully developed. Frankly, it doesn't finish developing till the mid-twenties or later. I'm in my mid-thirties, and I still occasionally misjudge risks.

Do you think he fully assessed the risk? Think it may have crossed his mind that GZ was a threat whom was stalking him and may want to kill him? Think that possibly crossed his mind? Was he correct? Lets stop blaming the kid for this lunatic murdering him. Any assumption he made about GZ were confirmed with the murder, any action he took to defend himself were confirmed with the murder.

Again, lets not turn this around on the kid. He did not stalk Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the one acting invincible by stalking the kid... with a loaded pistol. His actions are the ones to be described as playing too many video games. Lets stop vilifying the kid, no? He's not the murderer, he was the one going home who was murdered.

Don't you realize that you're acting much the same as the people who insist on exonerating Zimmerman and vilifying Martin?

The reality of the situation is that they both made rather serious errors of judgment in that situation. There is nothing to be gained by insisting that it must be otherwise when the facts of the matter don't support it. Isn't that what this website is about? Basing opinions on provable, verifiable facts?

Believe me, I've reviewed the facts of this case pretty carefully - before I did, I bought into the "Zimmerman stalked him, confronted him, and then shot him dead while claiming self-defense" line without really thinking about it - and those facts simply don't support that line of rhetoric. They certainly don't support it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you think he fully assessed the risk? Think it may have crossed his mind that GZ was a threat whom was stalking him and may want to kill him? Think that possibly crossed his mind? Was he correct? Lets stop blaming the kid for this lunatic murdering him. Any assumption he made about GZ were confirmed with the murder, any action he took to defend himself were confirmed with the murder.

I really wish you would stop with the confirmation bias and circular reasoning. Anything anyone says that doesn't conform to your belief that Zimmerman is a lunatic vigilante stalker who shot Martin while claiming self-defense simply gets ignored; and stating that Martin's assumptions were confirmed and actions justified because he was killed is one of the most blatant examples of circular reasoning I've seen in a long time.

I mean, seriously! He was killed, therefore everything he must have suspected about Zimmerman was true, and therefore everything he did to Zimmerman was retroactively justified? Don't you realize just how you sound when you say things like this?

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Don't you realize that you're acting much the same as the people who insist on exonerating Zimmerman and vilifying Martin?

The reality of the situation is that they both made rather serious errors of judgment in that situation. There is nothing to be gained by insisting that it must be otherwise when the facts of the matter don't support it. Isn't that what this website is about? Basing opinions on provable, verifiable facts?

How am I acting in the same manner, please expand. The ONLY verifiable facts of the case are that Zimmerman followed the kid, and that the kid was shot to death, and of course that the kid was not in the act of a crime. THOSE ARE THE ONLY FACTS WE HAVE. The rest is an attempt to justify the actions. This is what you are being willfully ignorant of. You are attempting to explain away WHY that kid never made it home. My position is, if he was not in the act of a crime himself, then it is irrelevant what excuse was given for him being shot. And I am not going to sit back and let dishonest people try to change the facts around to make this about what the victim did.

Quote

Believe me, I've reviewed the facts of this case pretty carefully - before I did, I bought into the "Zimmerman stalked him, confronted him, and then shot him dead while claiming self-defense" line without really thinking about it - and those facts simply don't support that line of rhetoric. They certainly don't support it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless you can show the kid was committing a crime you have no reasonable case. All you have is trying to turn the victim into to guilty party.

Quote

I really wish you would stop with the confirmation bias and circular reasoning. Anything anyone says that doesn't conform to your belief that Zimmerman is a lunatic vigilante stalker who shot Martin while claiming self-defense simply gets ignored; and stating that Martin's assumptions were confirmed and actions justified because he was killed is one of the most blatant examples of circular reasoning I've seen in a long time.

I mean, seriously! He was killed, therefore everything he must have suspected about Zimmerman was true, and therefore everything he did to Zimmerman was retroactively justified? Don't you realize just how you sound when you say things like this?

Confirmation bias? Please. The guy stalked him. Thats a fact as given by ALL parties. He stalked him with a LOADED PISTOL. A fact shown by the fact that the case exists. The kid has a right to defend himself against armed stalkers. The guy is a lunatic, check out his actual record. Please show me where I am wrong. When doing so, dont try to make the dead kid into the guilty party. Its classless.

Furthermore, what should the kid have done? I keep hearing and seeing dishonest people talk about the mistakes he made, but NEVER not once has anyone suggested a reasonable different response for him. And of course ALL of them suggest he should be submissive, which of course is a holdover from Jim Crow/slavery times.

Again, lets not turn this around on the kid. He did not stalk Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the one acting invincible by stalking the kid... with a loaded pistol. His actions are the ones to be described as playing too many video games. Lets stop vilifying the kid, no? He's not the murderer, he was the one going home who was murdered.

I didn't say he was wrong, he was just immature. Many 17 to 18 year olds are stupid in practical matters, even the geniuses.

If the kid was high on Romilar, even then it is not a matter for Zimmerman to investigate up close.

Okay, let's all simmer down here and stop with the name calling. You are all smart enough to make your arguments without trying to make the other guy feel bad or look stupid. Calling names is not a rational argument.